Sean Barrett wrote:
>If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position.
>If 20% of our images are from questionable sources, we are
>in a bad position and need to correct it quickly. Given the
>large number of images that have no provenance information,
>perhaps we should rearrange the image-upload process to
>require uploaders to click through a "where did you get this
>image" page before they enter the file name. Of course that
>won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it more
>obvious that they should.
We can force them to enter something by not allowing any blank fields. In fact
each upload should have a form to fill out.
Can we all agree on enforcing a policy that each image needs to indicate
ownership, copyright terms (or 'fair use' claim), and where it was obtained?
I'm sure it would be fairly easy to create a form with those three fields.
But yes - this is a big problem that needs to be fixed fast. Perhaps we could
have a week-long freeze on uploads to kick-off an effort to fix the problem.
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Michael Snow wrote
>Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107
>of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside
>the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be
>claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.
I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used
more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain' (Alex
and I got into a fight over this very issue). Fair use let's people use small
parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the
larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore
the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the
larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that
point.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Caroline Ford wrote:
>I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
>
>
> Copyrighted 43
> Fair use 186
> GFDL 1714
> Noncommerical 26
> Public Domain 369
> Unverified 273
>
> Total images tagged so far: 2611 (approx total images 40,000)
> Percentage unverified (images with no info): 10.4%
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own
> images. I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a
> thousand of which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's
> image upload log over 50% had no info.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Caroline / Secretlondon
Those numbers compute to almost exactly 20% questionable (everything but
public domain and GFDL), without taking into account the selection bias.
I see Martin beat me to that barnstar I was going to give you.
--Michael Snow
(Ach, getting sloppy about intelligible subject lines. Sorry for the
repeat.)
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> quotation
> n 1: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
> quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list
> several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are
> usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article
> includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn:
> {citation}, {acknowledgment}, {credit}, {reference},
> {mention}]
> 2: a passage or expression that is quoted or cited [syn:
> {quote}, {citation}]
> 3: a statement of the current market price of a security or
> commodity
> 4: the practice of quoting from books or plays etc.; "since he
> lacks originality he must rely on quotation"
>
> I don't have any reasons to believe that Berne Convention meant
> "quotation"
> in any wider meaning.
>
The intention of the drafters of a law is often ignored by the courts.
They read the law itself and apply generally accepted, sensible
meanings. I'm not saying my interpretation of Article 10 is definitely
correct; I'm saying it's a reasonable argument we can use in our favor.
>
> And it's more likely that we'll see peace in the Middle East, than
> WTO/WIPO
> limiting scope of the copyright.
>
It may be unlikely, but I don't think it's quite that unlikely. If the
free content movement becomes influential enough, we may be able to push
these institutions to recognize legitimate free uses.
--Michael Snow
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> quotation
> n 1: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a
> quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list
> several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are
> usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article
> includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn:
> {citation}, {acknowledgment}, {credit}, {reference},
> {mention}]
> 2: a passage or expression that is quoted or cited [syn:
> {quote}, {citation}]
> 3: a statement of the current market price of a security or
> commodity
> 4: the practice of quoting from books or plays etc.; "since he
> lacks originality he must rely on quotation"
>
>I don't have any reasons to believe that Berne Convention meant "quotation"
>in any wider meaning.
>
The intention of the drafters of a law is often ignored by the courts.
They read the law itself and apply generally accepted, sensible
meanings. I'm not saying my interpretation of Article 10 is definitely
correct; I'm saying it's a reasonable argument we can use in our favor.
>
>And it's more likely that we'll see peace in the Middle East, than WTO/WIPO
>limiting scope of the copyright.
>
It may be unlikely, but I don't think it's quite that unlikely. If the
free content movement becomes influential enough, we may be able to push
these institutions to recognize legitimate free uses.
--Michael Snow
"Michael Snow" <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> schrieb:
> I know that we carefully say that "All text is available under the terms
> of the GNU Free Documentation License", without saying anything about
> the images.
I also see another reason why I want to get rid of this: I see several
copiers who copy Wikipedia articles, keep them under GNU/FDL, but copyright
their layout. Whether this goes against the GNU/FDL or not, it certainly
goes against the _spirit_ of the GNU/FDL. I would like to speak up against
it, but currently I feel we are very weak there, because we do something
very similar ourselves. I would want to change this text to "This article
is available..."
Having said that, I think requiring that the image must be usable for
anyone might be overdoing it. I would say, the article including the image
should be usable for anyone. That is, having the image with a text equal
to or derived from the Wikipedia text should be ok, just taking the image
alone out need not be.
The very least we should do is to flag those images that are not under the
GNU/FDL, not only on the image page, but also on the using page.
Andre Engels
"Gareth Owen" <wiki(a)gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> schrieb:
> engelsAG(a)t-online.de (Andre Engels) writes:
>
> > Are there somewhere maps available that can be used for cases like this?
>
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/refmaps.html
Ah yes, that's definitely the kind of thing I'm looking for.
Although for Cook the map I want is not there - I need one of the whole
Pacific, or a world map with the split in the Atlantic or in the Indian
Ocean/Asia.
Also, a version without borders would be nice for historical maps, and a
version with less or no text as a base map in general. But I have bookmarked
this one, thanks!
Andre Engels
"Tomasz Wegrzanowski" <taw(a)users.sf.net> schrieb:
> The point of the Free content is to make available something that is as
> legal as if it was created by the receiver. It's impossible to be more
> legal than that. The patent, trademark, libel, censorship and other laws
> may make it impossible to use Free content in some situations, but equivalent
> content created by user would be equally affected.
>
> Example 1:
> You can't take a logo from a GFDL photo of Coca Cola headquarters and
> put it on soft drinks you're producing, but you couldn't if you made
> the photo yourself. Therefore it still qualifies as Free.
>
> Example 2:
> You can't take "fair use" Britney Spears picture and put it into a book
> about Britney Spears. But if you made the photo yourself, you could.
> Thus, not Free.
But if you created the work that used the "fair use" Britney Spears you still
could not.
Andre Engels
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:49:05PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>May I suggest that we ask ourselves a different kind of question. All
>>the countries in question are parties to the Berne Convention for the
>>Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the US. It has much
>>wider acceptance, and only a few countries have not signed on. No issues
>>with a US-centric fair use doctrine.
>>
>>Article 10 of the Berne Convention states, "It shall be permissible to
>>make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made
>>available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with
>>fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the
>>purpose...." This can be a basis for any of us, even outside the US, to
>>quote text when necessary. Perhaps we could also consider images in this
>>context.
>>
>>
>[...]
>
>No you can't. The Polish law is specificaly about text and I don't have
>any reason to believe it's any different in other countries.
>
I'll take your word for what Polish law says. But Poland is also a
signatory to the Berne Convention. If we can get WIPO or WTO to
determine that the Berne Convention is about more than just text, then
they have to abide by that.
--Michael Snow
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are
>>combining an article with an image into a single document
>>under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the
>>image alone. We are licensing them to modify the document,
>>and potential modification includes stripping out all the text
>>and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
>>modification--that's essential to copyleft.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright and thus a fair use
>but otherwise non-FDL image in an article can no more become copyrighted under
>the GNU FDL than a quote in the same article can (fair use is essentially a
>grant into a type of public domain for limited uses).
>
Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107 of the
Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside the concept of
copyright. It is a defense that may be claimed if the user is accused of
copyright infringement. It is not in any sense a grant into the public
domain, it's merely a limitation on the copyright owner's ability to
prevent certain uses. The work used remains copyrighted, only the
particular use is allowed. Any material we use under fair use is
copyrighted, but because we don't own the copyright, we don't really
have the ability to properly grant GFDL on it, because we can't restrict
downstream users to the particular use that was *fair*.
> In short, no license can
>affect whether or not something is fair to use since it is the *use*, not the
>license terms, that determine fairness.
>
This statement is much closer to the truth.
>We just need to tag images used under the various types of fair use. Stuff that
>would be fair use for non-commercial and commercial downstream users should
>have one tag and stuff that would be fair use for non-commercial use but not
>downstream commercial users should have a different tag.
>
Every case that claims fair use has to be considered separately. The
question of whether the use is commercial is a factor, but you can't
simply classify everything into commercial and non-commercial to decide
whether it is okay. Tagging images would be of very little help to
someone deciding whether their use of our images would be fair or not.
--Michael Snow